Future of Electronics In Aviation

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
:

Hi All,

I have noticed that each time this subject is broached, there seem to
be many who are perturbed by the idea of electronics/software assuming
a primary role (control, stabilization, etc.) in GA aircraft.

There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely
underutilized. The electronics that are used are mostly employed in
an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc.

There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally
integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that
any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed,
as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical,
analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost,
reliability, controllability, etc.

Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. I have
not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my
project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of
aviation.

What do you think?

1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics?
2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics?
3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?
4. What role will electronics play in aicraft designed in the year
2108?
5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108?
6. Any other thoughts...

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Here is an excerpt from a concurrent thread, where the conversation
seems to be turning toward Electronics-Or-Not:

On Jun 19, 11:16 am, wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:40 am, wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:

The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation
laws, seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself
an engineer, but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts
like energy density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but
why go on? Austin has its village idiot.

Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is
just an obsession with electronics and computers. The idea that
electric power is green is another falsehood; where does most
electricity come from? Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys),
coal (dirty), natural gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited
resource), nuclear (dangerous and waste problems), and so on.
Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked well and were affordable,
require hydrogen, which requires the electrolysis of water, which
needs vast amounts of electricity. Other methods of storage involve
heavy metals and their dangers. The idea that a helicopter is easy
to build (with biplane blades, yet, which was tried in the early
years of 'copters) just reveals that the writer knows nothing of
the problems that gyroscopic precession present to all rotating
components of the helicopter, to say nothing of the AOA and
airspeed variations of all rotor blades during flight. Helicopter
flight is appallingly complex and it's a wonder it happened so soon
after fixed-wing flight (35 years or so).

Dan

Here is a frightening thought. If Le Chaud is in fact an engineer,
someone is paying him money for his lack of knowledge of basics, like
the power demand to keep a something with a specific gravity greater
than its environment suspended there. Well, that may be second term
physics. Lift ferries indeed.

I wonder how long it would take me to understand his true worth -- I
do make mistakes in hiring, but rarely in discharging.

What do you care? You don't fly.


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

Pennino has been hitting on everyone analysing
future technology, now below he's gone sexual,
**** him, tell him he's fired!!!

Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
our speaker system...for about 100 years.
You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
and cheap.

The computer can be switched off and the pilot has
direct analog control, or, instead of farting around
with nav, trims etc, he sets, altitude 4000@120 knots,
heading 250 into the computer , and he sits back and
rests to enjoy the scenerary....and he can even set-up
a wake-up call.


God you're a fjukktard's fjukktard.




Ken
PS:Pennino is an annoying wop.

Classy.



Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:d76e8ea4-0850-
:

On Jun 19, 11:43 pm, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article , j...
@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin
wrote:

The material cost of software is $0.

This is like making reference to "Free health care".

Not in this world.

Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is
horrendous.

Lapin is a f**king genious.
I was watching eagles soaring over my property
today, and their feathers twitch, as a result of a
fine tuned central nervous system that has evolved
over millions of years. Now that ability is beyond
mechanics, but is readilly possible with a computer,
that may duplicate that flight ability, complete
with feedback, such that, the control surface also
does a measurment.
Birds work that all the time.
I'm still insane




I fixored your poast.



Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:14e95d2b-6011-
:

On Jun 21, 12:01 am, More_Flaps wrote:
On Jun 21, 3:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jun 20, 7:07 pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On Jun 20, 5:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
our speaker system...for about 100 years.
You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
and cheap.

A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system.
Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the
problem.

Cheers

See solenoid + electromagnetic speaker, yawn
It's simple for me.
Ken- Hide quoted text -

Look up servo and try to undersrand that it is closed loop, a
solenoid/speakers is not. Now do you understand?
Simple for you -oh yeh! LOL
Cheers

Thanks Flaps.
I've designed, tested and built servos, complete
with the appropriate feedback damping, ugh.


Modifying your sex toys doesn't count...





Bertie

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 21, 4:15?pm, wrote:
Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.

Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
reducing the pilot population.

And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
commodity.

Hmm..are you sure?

Yes.

There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
by virtue of the product:

* ball-point pen
* sticky-notes from 3M
* Sony Walkman, Discman
* Atari game console
* waverunner
* Kevlar
* Velcro
* microwave oven
* various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
frigidity
* gasoline additives
* mosquito repellant
* baby wipes
* polarized sunglasses
* pet rock (came and went)
* USB memory sticks
* DVD player

The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.

And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.

The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.

You have convinced me of one thing though, you are a childish, naive,
idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I was merely pointing out that, if a product is made, before anyone
knows what it is, they will still buy it if they like it, which
obviously can only occur after it has been made and made public.

If it is trivially cheap compared to income.

And it took years for microwave ovens to become commodity items as
opposed to a toy for the well off.

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

Yeah, the overwhelming sound of "It costs WHAT!!!" and "Are you out
of your mind?".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge

I work with Traffic Engineers, state DOT's and FHWA on a regular basis.

Automated traffic crap IS my area of expertise.

I'm well aware of what is out there and the experimental projects.

The statement stands.

If you believe it is just around the corner, somewhere I have a Popular
Mechanics from the 1930's that says the same thing you might like to read.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge


Here's a concept that should be pursued:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
Actual Hands-off Steering:
And Other Wonders of the Modern World

Yep, it was done then abandoned as being impractical to implement in the
real world.

It worked real good in a closed and monitored test area if you don't mind
spending a fortune.

The test area is now a reversible lane just north of San Diego.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 21, 10:05*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 21, 4:15?pm, wrote:
Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.

Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
reducing the pilot population.

And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
commodity.
Hmm..are you sure?

Yes.





There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
by virtue of the product:
* ball-point pen
* sticky-notes from 3M
* Sony Walkman, Discman
* Atari game console
* waverunner
* Kevlar
* Velcro
* microwave oven
* various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
frigidity
* gasoline additives
* mosquito repellant
* baby wipes
* polarized sunglasses
* pet rock (came and went)
* USB memory sticks
* DVD player
The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.

And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.

The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.

But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.

In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On 2008-06-20, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's
adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are
pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a
helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would
have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and
some significant disadvantages).

I disagree.

For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel
efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically
during flight. A computer can also minimize the effects of
turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces
dynamically.

But what you're describing is FADEC and autopilots, and they already
exist. You still don't need fly by wire; all you've described is a fancy
autopilot. I suspect it'll also have rather less effect on turbulence
than you expect, or Airbus would have done it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

....in French, meaning 'The sex maniac', literally 'the hot rabbit'. The
French have such a way with words!

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.